Will Montana Voters Nullify the Mandate?

HELENA, Mont. – On Nov. 6, Montana residents will exercise their sovereign right and decide on health care freedom.

LR-122 would prohibit the state and federal governments from requiring any Montana citizen to purchase health insurance, or from “imposing any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance.”

Supporters in the legislature opted for a legislatively-referred state statute, figuring they would have a better chance of getting the bill enacted as a ballot measure, avoiding Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s veto pen.

Rep. Gary MacLaren (R-Victor) introduced the measure in the House. He called health insurance mandates a punishment for poverty.

“Who doesn’t have health insurance? People who can’t afford it. If they don’t [buy it] we’re going to fine them. So what are we doing? We’re fining people for being poor.”

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MANDATING THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE OR IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DECISIONS RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACT BE SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

LR-122 prohibits the state and federal governments from requiring the purchase of health insurance or imposing any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance. The prohibition does not apply to: (1) a court which orders the purchase of insurance when an individual or entity is a named party in a judicial dispute; (2) the state department of public health and human services as part of a child support enforcement action; or (3) the Montana university system as a requirement for students.

[] FOR prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance.

[] AGAINST prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance.

Unsurprisingly, opponents demonstrated their typically muddled understanding of the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” arguing that LR-122 wouldn’t make any practical difference because the Supreme Court ruled the federal insurance mandates constitutional.

If there is any conflict between state and federal laws, the federal law wins. That’s called the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, said University of Montana law professor Anthony Johnstone.

“This means that while the Montana Legislature or the people of Montana may pass laws that conflict with federal law, such laws are unenforceable as a practical matter,” Johnstone said in an analysis of the ballot questions in response to an Associated Press query.

Wittich said it was still important to pass the initiative because if enough states push back, the feds will have to listen to the people.

Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey blasted Johnstone for perpetuating a bastardized understanding of federal supremacy, pointing out that only acts passed “in pursuance of” the Constitution stand as the supreme law of the land. Without a constitutionally enumerated power to support them, Congressional acts are nothing more than an illegal usurpation of power.

Get the new book today!

“These so-called legal scholars can blather on in condescending tones all they want, but that doesn’t mean they know what the hell they are talking about,” he said. “These clowns completely ignore the key phrase in the supremacy clause ‘in pursuance of.’ Sure, the Supreme Court gave us its opinion on the constitutionality of Obamacare. But their opinion is based on about 100 years of unconstitutional precedent. My challenge to Johnstone and his like-minded colleagues is to point to me the enumerated power that delegates Congress the power to create a one-size-fits-all federal health care system. They can’t – because it doesn’t exist.”

*******

For more information on health freedom legislation across the U.S., click HERE.

11 thoughts on “Will Montana Voters Nullify the Mandate?”

I agree 100% with the states taking this course. I wish mine was one of them. I’m just wondering how they would stop the IRS from charging and collecting the penalty. Seizing assets, freezing bank accounts, etc.

@MarkBHopp The legislation passed by the states can say whatever it wants on paper but the IRS is a huge, out-of-control, federal agency that can make your life a living hell if they choose. They can confiscate future tax refunds, seize your assets, freeze your bank accounts, and maybe even garnish your wages. My question is, how far is the state of Montana going to go to interpose itself between the feds and it’s citizens. If I was a citizen of Montana and planning to not purchase health insurance I would want this question answered beforehand.

As I said before, I am in full support of these nullification efforts.

I see massive quantities of very expensive litigation either between fed and state governments or between individuals and fed government. If the current management remains in office, they are not simply going to set back and take these challenges to their usurped power. They have proven they are not opposed to using our money and the courts to get their way. In the mean time, the individual citizens will be suffering.

@vet91 I agree but we’re in the beginning stages of states asserting themselves. My guess is that there will be a battle and the feds will win. But what if the FEDS are fighting 50 states all at the same time? How many battles can they really take on? I’m speaking of not just this issue but of the many issues. The people out number the ruling elite and states out number the FEDS. Worse case scenario is that the states pass laws that maybe are not enforceable right now but will be once the inevitable collapse comes. Take away the Federal Reserve and the dollar and the Federal government is as weak as any state government.

The Acts violates the separation of power between the States and their federal government so the so-called Supremacy Clause has no application because there was no authority to pass the law in the first place.

“Unsurprisingly, opponents demonstrated their typically muddled understanding of the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” arguing that LR-122 wouldn’t make any practical difference because the Supreme Court ruled the federal insurance mandates constitutional.” Very true. The Supreme Court did “not” rule on the Constitutionality of the law itself. It only ruled on the federal government’s authority to levy the “tax” which the Administration still insists is a “penalty”.